ELEPHANT BATTLE EXPERIMENT

[Chris]

I have no doubt that a miniature reproduction of Antiochus Soter's battle against the invading horde of Galatians would look spectacular on a landscaped tabletop. [1] Given the comparatively low numbers involved on both sides, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the one-sided engagement could be modeled at 1:10 scale (at least in 10mm or 6mm scale!). Obviously, the 16 elephants allegedly employed the the Seleucids would be represented as individual pachyderms.

As interesting as it is to read about this historical battle, I confess that I would have absolutely no interest in re-fighting it on my table. I certainly would not want to lead the Galatians! Who could I ask to take command of the barbarians?! How would I phrase the offer? "Um, excuse me . . . Would you be at all interested in playing a wargame wherein you have absolutely no chance of victory and will be occupied primarily by routing your troops away from enemy elephants until your army completely disintegrates?" I can just imagine the responses this question would generate!

Even so, I found the reported historical encounter appealing and thought it might make for an enjoyable afternoon if I modified things a bit. Okay . . . more than just a bit. I started where I usually do, with the orders of battle.

The Opposing Forces
From Page I of the ARMATI 2nd Edition rules, I drafted a double-sized Early Seleucid army reinforced by 160 points of bonus units. It had a commanding general (worth 2 key units if captured or killed who added +2 to any melee), a sub-general (worth 1 key unit if captured or killed who added +1 to any melee), and contained the following formations:
10 units of PH - phalanx armed with pikes
02 units of PH - phalanx armed with pikes (Argyraspids)
02 units of HC - heavy cavalry with spears
05 units of  EL - elephants (the crews/escorts armed with various weapons)
03 units of LI - light infantry armed with javelins (peltasts)
01 unit of HC - heavy cavalry armed with various weapons
02 units of LC - light cavalry armed with various weapons
03 units of SI - skirmishers armed with javelins
02 units of SI - skirmishers armed with bows
02 units of SI - skirmishers armed with slings

The army had an initiative rating of 4 and could arrange itself into 6 heavy divisions and 8 light divisions. Its break point was 9 key units.

The Galatian host was selected from Page J. Like the Early Seleucids, this barbarian army was twice the size of a "normal" force but unlike the professionals, it was supported by 180 points of bonus units and led by just one commander. (This impressive "king" was also worth 2 key units and had a melee modifier of +2.) The core of the Galatian army contained the following:
10 units of WB - warband armed with various weapons
06 units of SI - skirmishers armed with javelins
02 units of HC - heavy cavalry armed with various weapons
02 units of M2CH - medium chariots (the crews armed with various weapons)

The additional formations included the following:
09 units of WB - warband armed with various weapons
03 units of WB - warband armed with various weapons (Gaesati)
02 units of SI - skirmishers armed with javelins
04 units of HC - heavy cavalry armed with various weapons
02 units of LC - light cavalry armed with various weapons
02 units of M2CH - medium chariots (the crews armed with various weapons)
02 units of SCYTH - scythed chariots

This group of Galatians also had an initiative rating of 4. It could form 8 heavy divisions but only 4 light divisions. The morale break point for this barbarian army was 13 key units.

Terrain
I chose to ignore the core and bonus terrain pieces provided in each army list and instead, opted to use and modify the field of Chaeronea (338 BC) as diagrammed on page 68 of Warfare in the Classical World. I retained the series of hills/ridges on the Athenian/Theban - now Galatian - side of the table, and kept the large acropolis as well. The course of the River Cephissus was changed so that it ran along the far left edge of the field (from the Seleucid perspective); the marshy area remained intact if slightly adjusted with regard to actual position. The other water courses on the referenced map were filled in and a substantial growth of forest was arranged along half of the Seleucid long edge of the tabletop. 

Scenario Rules
In the interest of conducting further tests, I retained 8 of the 9 rule amendments established for my previously submitted battle report, "Party in Parthia." The amendment I set aside was the suspension of impetus. For this particular contest, this important rule was reinstated. Three other significant changes were made.

1.  All Galatian warband units would roll 2d6 on the first round of melee and choose the best result for combat calculation. (This amendment was borrowed from a previously established rule  variant.)

2. Any Galatian unit coming into contact with a Seleucid elephant stand will automatically be marked as "panicked." This means that the unit will fight with its Special Fighting Value.

3. Regarding elephants in combat . . . The LA house rules were adopted in full. In brief summary, any BP scored against an elephant unit requires a morale check. On a roll of 6, the elephant unit routs, turning 180 degrees from its attacker and stampeding a full move. A routing elephant unit cannot rally. It will attack anything in its way, causing infantry to become un-dressed and cavalry to break.

Deployment
The center piece of the Seleucid deployment was the defensive formation of the phalanx. The 12 units of infantry armed with pikes were arranged in 4 groups of 3. The spaces between the 4 smaller phalanxes were occupied by stands of elephants. These units of pachyderms were not aligned with the business-end of the pikemen; they were held in immediate reserve, attached to the infantry formation but out of danger. The idea was to bring the elephants forward once the barbarians had impaled themselves of the serried pike points of the phalanx blocks. The general of the army stationed himself behind the 2 units of Argyraspids and a unit of regular pikemen on the right of the formation. The front of the phalanx was screened by 3 units of javelin-armed skirmishers and 2 more units of skirmishers carrying bows.

All of the heavy cavalry (3 units) was positioned on the right flank, facing the ruins of the acropolis. The sub-general was here as well, riding behind a 2 unit division of heavy horse. Forming a kind of linchpin between the center and right was a single unit of light infantry and another group of elephants. The left flank of the Seleucid army was protected by 2 units of light infantry, the last group of elephants, and 2 units of light cavalry. There was also a 2-unit division of skirmishing slingers deployed in front of a light infantry unit and the elephants.

In the front line and in the approximate center of the Galatian host were 2 squadrons of scythed chariots. On the left and right of these "man mowing" vehicles were groups of medium chariots. The second line of the center formation contained a division of javelin-armed skirmishers (placed on the left) and 3 Gaesati warbands (positioned to follow the scythed chariots). Over on the right flank, there was another group of skirmishers armed with javelins and 2 units of light horse. More than a move to the rear, there was a 7-unit division of Galatian warriors. Way over on the other side, to the right of the two-tiered hill topped with an acropolis, there were 6 units of heavy cavalry, arranged in 2-unit divisions and 3 staggered lines. The main gathering of Galatian warriors formed a long and formidable-looking 12-unit line extending from a point well to the rear of the right-most scythed chariot all the way left to behind the third division of barbarian heavy horse.

Summary of the Action
On the Seleucid left flank, their light cavalry drew first blood on the day against the two units of Galatian light horse. The skirmishers of both sides went against training and decided to have at each other. This contest was short lived however, as a group of Seleucid light infantry advanced and dispersed both lines of javelin-armed skirmishers. This particular unit moved up to within missile range of a wall of Galatian warband and proceeded to bother the fierce warriors with a number of javelins. Along with their brother unit, the Seleucid light infantry played a game of "cat and mouse" with the enemy warbands. This game ended when the Galatian light cavalry recovered from the initial shock and proceeded to defeat and break the Seleucid horse. Hoping to delay the inevitable and thereby assist the center and right, the Seleucid light infantry performed another about face and returned to the fight. They essentially sacrificed themselves to the mass of Galatian warriors. To their credit, however, these brave (foolish?) light infantry did make a couple of dents in the warband wall.

Over on the Galatian left flank, a chaotic and prolonged contest between opposing formations of heavy cavalry took place. Each side attempted to gain advantage through wheeling this or that "regiment," but things soon devolved into a mess of horses and men. Early on in the fighting, the Seleucid sub-general was mortally wounded. The morale of his cavalry troopers remained unshaken, fortunately. There was a unit of Seleucid light infantry involved as well, though in a separate battle away from the large melee. These foot soldiers withstood the initial charge of the enemy heavy horse but paid the ultimate price. The cavalry engagement raged for the duration of the battle, with the Seleucids finally emerging victorious on their right flank.

In the center of the field, the Galatian scythed chariots were annoyed by the missiles of some well-placed Seleucid skirmishers and then eliminated by the same when the chariots tried to break through the line. On the left and right of the center, the Galatian medium chariots also proved unsuccessful in their attack on the end units on the Seleucid phalanx. Adding insult to deadly injury, one of the chariot "squadrons" was caught in the right rear by a group of elephants which had made a smart maneuver and had taken advantage of the Seleucid control of the initiative. Long story short, the Galatian medium chariots died on the sharp end of hedgerows of pikes or under the feet of trumpeting pachyderms. The phalanx did not get to rest long, for the warbands of Gaesati were soon upon them. These fierce if somewhat slow moving warriors had been subjected to a barrage of javelins from screening skirmishers, so they launched themselves into the pike points on the verge of being fatigued. As the Seleucid pikemen were deployed in depth, they enjoyed an advantage in the ensuing and definitely one-sided melee. Wave after wave of Gaesati crashed into the phalanx but to no appreciable effect. In a matter of minutes, the ground in front of the engaged portion of the phalanx was littered with hundreds of dead and wounded barbarians.

The only bright spot in the battle for the Galatians was when a weakened and undressed (meaning slightly disordered from a significant wheeling maneuver) unit of heavy cavalry charged into the right side of an Argyraspid phalanx. The pikemen folded like a house of cards and the barbarian cavalry spurred their horse on into the next unit of unsuspecting heavy infantry. This block of pike-wielding foot soldiers also collapsed. The Galatian heavy horse was too tired and disorganized to make another charge, so the third unit in the Seleucid line was safe.

The main formation of Galatian warriors never made contact with their enemy counterpart. They did get introduced to a couple of unit of elephants, however. The Seleucid troop commanders wheeled their animals and directed them against the long line of warbands. Never having seen these "monsters" before, the effect and impact was as might be imagined. Most of the warriors panicked and ran but a few brave fellows stayed and fought. Unfortunately, it was a lost cause. With the destruction of all the medium chariots, the majority of the cavalry, and all of the Gaesati warriors (plus a few more warbands besides), the morale of the Galatians was broken.

Commentary
Even though my fictional model battlefield was paper-based and therefore primitive (especially by the standards one sees today on the Internet and in the monthly publications), I was still rather pleased with the overall presentation. The various formations were readily identifiable and movable without being too fragile. The terrain features were simple and two-dimensional, but equally identifiable and they did add a certain something to the overall effect. The tabletop was neither crowded nor groaning under the weight of actual miniatures and all their accessories or accoutrements (or potential hazards, such as a beverage or a misplaced elbow!).

While this fictional battle proved to be a rather one-sided contest, I still found this nine-turn "experiment" to be quite engaging and enjoyable. However, as I played each turn through its ordered sequence, I found myself critiquing how I had set up the opposing armies and wondering if I was giving the Galatians a fair chance by simply making what turned out to be a series of unsupported frontal assaults. Neither type of Galatian chariot had any impact on the Seleucid phalanx. The same can be said for the Geasati warbands. This is not surprising and is supported, I would contend, by historical accounts. I admit to being a bit surprised by the result of the heavy cavalry contest over on the Seleucid right flank. The Galatians had a 2-to-1 advantage but were not able to capitalize on this superiority and exploit the situation. On review, this seems to have been caused by the staggered deployment of the barbarian heavy horse and the limited ability of the Galatian command. The only bright point (as previously mentioned) was when a single unit of cavalry was able to find the exposed flank of the main phalanx and wreck at least a little havoc.

In contrast to the reported historical battle, on my tabletop there was limited contact between Seleucid elephants and groups of barbarians. I confess that I did find it a bit odd for a unit of pachyderms to catch up with and melee a moving unit of medium chariots, but this is not completely outside of the realm of possibility. There were only two occasions  where elephants and warbands met. Speaking subjectively, I thought the rule amendment worked very well and the dice worked even better for the fortunate Seleucids. Along that same line, there was very little contact between the Galatian warbands and the Seleucid phalanx. I think the amendment permitting warbands to roll 2d6 in the first melee round is a good one. The odds are still rather stacked against these warriors unfortunately, as their frontal fighting value is just 4 and the frontal fighting value of a Seleucid pike phalanx is 8.

At the acknowledged risk of repeating myself, I can confidently state that I enjoyed playing this fictional battle to completion and was engaged and entertained during all parts of the process. And I will admit that I am tempted to play another staging of this using Hail Caesar rules (with modifications, of course), and well as purchase the one source in the footnote which argues against the occurrence of an Elephant Victory.


Notes
[1] Courtesy of fellow society member Jim Webster (many thanks, Jim), in a post made on 26 May 2012, there is a link to Lucian. See pages 97-99 of http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl2/wl207.htm. Additional digging uncovered this site http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/tag/battle-of-the-elephants/, which also proved an interesting read. The plot thickens - as they sometimes say - when further "research" turned up "Deconstructing a Myth of Seleucid History: The So-Called 'Elephant Victory' Revisited," an article appearing in Volume 66, Number 1/2 of PHOENIX, a publication of the Classical Association of Canada. I have not secured a copy of the article but here is the English version of the abstract:

   It is commonly believed that Antiochus I's war elephants defeated the Galatians (275/268
   b.c.), earning him Soter cults in the Greek cities. However, the evidence for this view is scarce, late, and   
        incompatible with the effective continuity of Galatian dominance in western Asia Minor. Apparently,
        Antiochus' victory was diplomatic and propagandistic rather than martial.

Evidently, an "ancient" issue of Miniature Wargames magazine (July 1997, Number 170) contains an article titled "The Elephant Victory." I am making the assumption that the piece discusses the history and wargaming possibilities of the battle between Antiochus I and the invading Galatians. This issue is available on e-Bay. I have not made further inquiries.

[Duncan Head]

The plot thickens - as they sometimes say - when further "research" turned up "Deconstructing a Myth of Seleucid History: The So-Called 'Elephant Victory' Revisited," an article appearing in Volume 66, Number 1/2 of PHOENIX, a publication of the Classical Association of Canada.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.7834/phoenix.66.1-2.0057?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104569683897 if anyone with JSTOR access would like to investigate further.

[willb]

a copy of the original account can be found on this forum at
http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=222.0
note that the Seleucid army is supposed to have more unarmored troops than armored some of the pike armed infantry should probably be replaced with additional light troops.

[Patrick Waterson]

It is commonly believed that Antiochus I's war elephants defeated the Galatians (275/268 b.c.), earning him Soter cults in the Greek cities. However, the evidence for this view is scarce, late, and incompatible with the effective continuity of Galatian dominance in western Asia Minor. Apparently, Antiochus' victory was diplomatic and propagandistic rather than martial.

Any opinion which assumes that the defeat of a Galatian force invading Mesopotamia would automatically produce Seleucid supremacy in western Asia Minor should be ingested, if at all, with a generous pinch of salt.

The paper looks as if it could be very informative, but the judgement expressed appears questionable.

[Duncan Head]

Where do you get Mesopotamia from? The source account doesn't mention where the battle took place, and it is usually thought to be precisely in western Anatolia. From Bar-Kochva's Judas Maccabeus:

Attempts have generally been made to connect the information in II Macabees with Antiochus I's celebrated campaign against the Galatians, known as the 'elephant victory' (273 B.C.), but it is impossible to transfer the latter episode from its natural background near the Ionian cities of western Asia Minor. Although Lucian, the only source describing that battle (Zeuxis 8-11) says nothing of the site, and sources from the Roman period report only that the battle was conducted in 'Asia' (referring perhaps to the boundaries of the Roman province of Asia), there are clear indications that it did take place in western Asia Minor. Thus the proclamation of the city of Ilium during the reign of Antiochus I noting that the king crossed the Taurus and saved 'the cities' (OGIS 219, 11. 11—15) apparently refers to that same campaign.

[Patrick Waterson]

"These people were good fighters, and on this occasion in great force; they were drawn up in a serried phalanx, the first rank, which consisted of steel-clad warriors, being supported by men of the ordinary heavy-armed type to the depth of four-and-twenty; twenty thousand cavalry held the flanks; and there were eighty scythed, and twice that number of ordinary war chariots ready to burst forth from the centre." - Lucian, Zeuxis and Antiochus

How many Galatian armies of this massiveness were beaten by a scratch Macedonian force a fraction of their size?

"Moreover, he told them of the times when help came to their ancestors; both the time of Sennacherib, when one hundred and eighty-five thousand perished, [20] and the time of the battle with the Galatians that took place in Babylonia, when eight thousand in all went into the affair, with four thousand Macedonians; and when the Macedonians were hard pressed, the eight thousand, by the help that came to them from heaven, destroyed one hundred and twenty thousand and took much booty." - II Maccabees 8.19-20

Why is the elephant victory's 'natural background' considered to be 'near the Ionian cities of western Asia Minor'?

Thus the proclamation of the city of Ilium during the reign of Antiochus I noting that the king crossed the Taurus and saved 'the cities'

Yes, but in which direction did he 'cross the Taurus'?  And which cities did he save: those in western Anatolia or those in Mesopotamia? 

[Duncan Head]

Yes, but in which direction did he 'cross the Taurus'?  And which cities did he save: those in western Anatolia or those in Mesopotamia? 

Well, the inscription's from Ilium: which do you think is more likely for the Ilians to commemorate, the rescue of their own city and its neighbours, or of a far-off province not noted for Greek cities anyway?

Why is the elephant victory's 'natural background' considered to be 'near the Ionian cities of western Asia Minor'?

Ask Bar-Kochva. His main statement is "On the Sources and Chronology of Antiochus I's Battle against the Galatians" (PCPS, NS 19 (1973)), and his identification seems to have been generally accepted ever since, and is presumably what the author of the Phoenix article is following. My own old notes on this article are very brief and don't help much.

But the only sources for the battle, apart from Lucian, appear to be linked with western Anatolia - the inscription from Ilion, the fact that it was commemorated in an epic by Simonides of Magnesia-on-the-Sipylos (Suda sigma 443), a native of western Asia Minor, and the famous terracotta from Myrina in Ionia of an elephant defeating a Galatian.

The match between the details Lucian gives and the II Mac. passage are not very close. B-K wants to connect the latter with the "brothers' war" between Seleucus II and Antiochos Hierax in 229/8, when the Galatians were allied with Hierax, who invaded Babylonia. Polyainos IV.17 mentions the defeat of 4,000 of Seleucus' men by Hierax's troops (B-K links these to the 4,000 hard-pressed Macedonians), despite which (says Trogus/Justin) Hierax was subsequently defeated in Babylonia: "and it may be said that only during the Brothers' War did the Galatians have both the opportunity and a reason to invade Babylonia" (B-K). The match between Poly's details and II Macc.'s isn't all that great either, but I think B-K is correct that we have no evidence for any other Galatian wars or raids as far East as Babylonia.

Incidentally in Appendix H to Judas Maccabeus, B-K mentions that Momigliano identified the II Macc. reference with a battle under Antiochos III, but B-K's not convinced at all.

[Andreas Johansson]

[q]steel-clad warriors[/q]

Note quite the usual image of 3C Galatians, I note in passing.

[Patrick Waterson]

Well, the inscription's from Ilium: which do you think is more likely for the Ilians to commemorate, the rescue of their own city and its neighbours, or of a far-off province not noted for Greek cities anyway?

If commemorating the rescue of their own city, I would expect a full poem or panegyric, not just a proclamation.  One might also wonder how many Greek colonists settled in Mesopotamia came from western Asia Minor cities, and still had friends and relatives there.

Why is the elephant victory's 'natural background' considered to be 'near the Ionian cities of western Asia Minor'?

Ask Bar-Kochva. His main statement is "On the Sources and Chronology of Antiochus I's Battle against the Galatians" (PCPS, NS 19 (1973)), and his identification seems to have been generally accepted ever since, and is presumably what the author of the Phoenix article is following. My own old notes on this article are very brief and don't help much.

But the only sources for the battle, apart from Lucian, appear to be linked with western Anatolia - the inscription from Ilion, the fact that it was commemorated in an epic by Simonides of Magnesia-on-the-Sipylos (Suda sigma 443), a native of western Asia Minor, and the famous terracotta from Myrina in Ionia of an elephant defeating a Galatian.

Again, if these cities were conscious of ties with Greek colonists in Mesopotamia they might well be expected to launch a round of vicarious celebratory commemorations.  Just a thought.

One might also ponder: if there was "effective continuity of Galatian dominance in western Asia Minor" following the battle, perhaps all the more reason to celebrate a Galatian defeat elsewhere.  Going into full speculation mode, the unexpected upset at the hands of Antiochus may have made the Galatians chary about molesting any cities subject to, or claiming, Seleucid protection, which might have made him a universal rather than just a regional Soter. 

The match between the details Lucian gives and the II Mac. passage are not very close. B-K wants to connect the latter with the "brothers' war" between Seleucus II and Antiochos Hierax in 229/8, when the Galatians were allied with Hierax, who invaded Babylonia. Polyainos IV.17 mentions the defeat of 4,000 of Seleucus' men by Hierax's troops (B-K links these to the 4,000 hard-pressed Macedonians),

Let us examine this incident.

"Antiochus, having revolted from his brother Seleucus, made his escape into Mesopotamia; and in his march over the Armenian mountains he was joined by Arsabes. The two generals of Seleucus, Achaeus and Andromachus, pursued him in great force; and an obstinate battle was fought, in which Antiochus was wounded, and fled to the upper parts of the mountain, leaving the main body of the army to encamp on the sides of it. He then directed that a report of his death should be propagated, and ordered his army in the night to advance to the heights of the mountain. The next day the army of Antiochus sent envoys, Philetaerus the Cretan and Dionysius of Lysimacheia, to ask for the body of Antiochus in order to bury it; and on condition of receiving it, to engage to surrender themselves as prisoners of war. Andromachus agreed to these conditions; he informed them that the body of Antiochus was not yet found, and proposed to send an escort for the prisoners and arms. A detachment of four thousand men was accordingly dispatched, not prepared for action, but as a deputation to receive the prisoners. As soon as they advanced to the sides of the mountains, those who were posted on the heights attacked them, and made great havoc amongst them. Then Antiochus, appearing in his royal robes, presented himself to them, both alive, and victorious."

This does not seem to fit at all, in that the 4,000 men (not necessarily Macedonians) are a detachment from a "great force" which has just fought a successful battle.  Lucian and II Maccabees, while not resoundingly congruent, are at least in agreement about the enemy (Galatians) and the fact that the Seleucid force was greatly outnumbered.

[q]steel-clad warriors[/q]

Note quite the usual image of 3C Galatians, I note in passing.

True, although these had been re-equipped by Nicomedes of Bithynia as part of a deal that left his realm unravaged, the Gauls directing their attentions elsewhere.  The result of their clash with Antiochus perhaps confirmed all their prejudices about the gods despising and hindering those who did not fight properly skyclad.

[Duncan Head]

Well, the inscription's from Ilium: which do you think is more likely for the Ilians to commemorate, the rescue of their own city and its neighbours, or of a far-off province not noted for Greek cities anyway?

If commemorating the rescue of their own city, I would expect a full poem or panegyric, not just a proclamation.

The epimenios being Nymphios son of Diotrephes, the epistates being Dionysios son of Hippomedon, Demetrios the son of Dies spoke: Whereas King Antiochus, son of King Seleucus, when he first took over the kingship and adopted a glorious and noble policy, sought to restore the cities of the Seleukis, which were beset by difficult circumstances on account of those who were in rebellion, to peace and to their former prosperity, and, marching out against those who attacked his kingdom, as was just, (sought) to recover his ancestral empire; wherefore, embarking upon a noble and just enterprise and having not only his friends and forces eager to support him to the end in his struggle for the state but also the supernatural as a kind ally, he restored the cities to peace and his kingdom to its former condition; and now, coming to the area on this side of the Taurus (mountains) he has with all zealous concern at once established peace for the cities and brought his affairs and his kingdom to a greater and more brilliant condition, mostly thanks to his own virtue, but also thanks to the good-will of his friends and his forces; so, in order that the demos, since even previously at the time when he took over the kingship - it regularly made vows and sacrifices to all the gods on his behalf, may show the king clearly that it is now well-disposed and has the same policy, be it resolved by the boule and the demos, for the priestess and the hieronomoi and the prytaneis to pray to Athena Ilias, along with the ambassadors, that his presence has been (for the good) of the King and of his sister the Queen and of his friends and forces, and that all other good things accrue to the King and the Queen, and that their affairs and kingdom remain (steadfast), progressing just as they themselves intend; and for all the other priests and priestesses to pray, with the priest of King Antiochus, 'I to Apollo the founder of his line and to Victory and to Zeus and to all the other gods and goddesses. With the prayers to Athena let the hieronomoi and the prytaneis, with the priestess and the ambassadors, perform the customary and ancestral sacrifice; (with the prayers) to Apollo and the other gods let the strategoi, with the other priests and priestesses, (perform the sacrifice). When they make the sacrifices, let all the citizens and paroikoi wear garlands, and let them, meeting [in their houses] perform sacrifices to the gods on behalf of the King and the demos. And, [in order that] the role of the demos in promoting these things pertaining to honor and glory [may be clear to all], (be it resolved) to praise him for the virtue and courage he always has, [and to set up] a golden image [of him] on horseback in the sanctuary of Athena in the most conspicuous [place] by the altar of white stone, and to inscribe upon it: "The demos (of the Mans (dedicates this statue of) King] Antiochus, son of King Seleucus, on account of his piety towards the sanctuary, he who has become [benefactor and] savior of the demos." And for the agonothetes and the s[ynhedroi] to make a proclamation [at the Panathenaia at the] athletic contest, [when the] city and the other cities crown [Athena] Ilias with the (crown of valor], making the announcement [ - 1; and to choose as ambassadors from among all [the Ilians three men, who], saluting him for the [demos and rejoicing at the fact that] he and [his sister the Queen and their children] and his friends and the [forces] are (all) in good health, [shall report to him the decreed honor], and, relating [the good-will of the demos, which it has always] continued [to hold toward both] his father King S[eleucus and the whole royal house], shall call upon [him ---.]

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/classics/bagnall/3995/readings/b-d2-1b.htm

Which does confirm that it is the Anatolian side of the Taurus we are talking about. I don't know how many Greek cities' inscriptions of thanks to royal benefactors stretch to "a full poem or panegyric" - not, I suspect, a majority.

But, of course, it doesn't actually mention the Galatians, which is a bit disappointing - I had assumed that it gave somewhat stronger support to B-K's identification.

[Duncan Head]

steel-clad warriors

Note quite the usual image of 3C Galatians, I note in passing.

Nor quite an accurate rendering since Lucian's text actually says chalkothorakas, bronze-cuirassed. "Steel" might have meant Celtic mail - bronze must surely have meant Hellenistic equipment, whether supplied by Nikomedes or looted.

[Patrick Waterson]

Which does confirm that it is the Anatolian side of the Taurus we are talking about. I don't know how many Greek cities' inscriptions of thanks to royal benefactors stretch to "a full poem or panegyric" - not, I suspect, a majority.

A good point if the deed is to be inscribed in bronze in a public place or anything similar: this seems about the right length for a grateful city to make public at public expense.  We may note in passing that Antiochus is first listed as undertaking his "noble and just enterprise" in which he "restored the cities to peace and his kingdom to its former condition" and is then noted as "and now, coming to the area on this side of the Taurus (mountains) he has with all zealous concern at once established peace for the cities".

If this sequence is considered significant, it would suggest that whatever 'struggle for the state' and 'restoring ... the kingdom to its former condition' he did was on the other side of the Taurus.

But, of course, it doesn't actually mention the Galatians, which is a bit disappointing - I had assumed that it gave somewhat stronger support to B-K's identification.

It seems to run along the lines of: our king marched forth, did splendidly on the other side of the empire, then he marched back and we all rejoice.  If this is referring to the Galatians, the "marching out against those who attacked his kingdom" bit would seem to cover those.  It seems however to be a bit more generic as it speaks of 'rebellion' and 'those who attacked his kingdom', so might conceivably be alluding to more than one event.